top of page
Search

Family: Woman's bid to overturn divorce deal dismissed

administration9514

A Pretoria woman who wanted to continue living with her new partner in a house that was bought and maintained by her ex-husband, has lost her leave to appeal. Before the couple divorced in March 2016 after almost four years of marriage, they signed a settlement agreement stating that the ex-husband would find his ex-wife a house in a suitable security complex where she would live with their child. It stated that the ex-husband would be responsible for the levies, insurance, security, and consumer account in respect of the property. However, the ex-husband's condition was that if the ex-wife married or cohabited with another person, he would no longer provide housing to the ex-wife.


In February 2017, he complied with the settlement agreement and bought his ex-wife a house. In October 2020, the ex-husband became aware that his ex-wife had remarried or was in a cohabitation relationship, and a child was born of that relationship. Through his attorneys, he informed his ex-wife that he was no longer obliged to provide her with accommodation. She was then given notice to vacate the property by the end of November 2020, and if she failed, she would be evicted. She replied through her attorney and said in the absence of a court order, she would continue to occupy the property. The ex-husband brought an eviction application against the ex-wife in January 2021. The application is yet to be heard.


While the eviction application was pending, the ex-wife brought an application before the Gauteng High Court (Pretoria), seeking, among other things, to rescind and set aside the settlement agreement they entered into prior to the divorce. The report says she claimed the ex-husband was dishonest and wanted his fraudulent conduct referred to the NPA. She further argued that the settlement agreement was induced by misrepresentation, dishonest conduct, and fraudulent conduct. She said she was made to believe that her ex-husband was buying the house for her, and she signed the settlement agreement in the absence of an attorney, and she was under duress. The High Court dismissed her application, saying she dismally failed to place sufficient, credible, and compelling evidence to substantiate her application, despite being ably represented by counsel of her choice. She was also ordered to pay the cost of the application. She appealed the decision in the same court and said she was discriminated against because of her gender. She added that the court’s discretion in awarding punitive costs was based upon a wrong principle.


Acting Judge AK Ramlal, who heard the first application and the appeal, said the reasons for the dismissal were clearly stated in the previous judgment and it was not necessary to repeat those reasons as they would unnecessarily lengthen an already repetitive and voluminous record. Ramlal said the reasons provided adequate motivation for the dismissal of the application and the resultant costs order. ‘Upon a thorough reflection of the grounds cited in the application for leave to appeal, and in light of the reasons given in my judgment, I am not persuaded that another court would arrive at a different decision,’ the judge said. ‘I stand by the reasons for the costs order that was granted when the application was dismissed as they are fully detailed in the judgment.’

182 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Comentários


    © 2018 RBA Attorneys.

    Created by Catchword Marketing & Communication

    bottom of page